During a recent government meeting, significant discussions arose regarding the testimony of an architect and the methodologies used in a traffic impact study related to a warehouse project. The meeting featured a cross-examination led by Mr. Tarantino, who challenged the architect's calculations, which he referred to as \"voodoo math.\" The architect, who specializes in warehouse design, faced scrutiny over his qualifications to comment on warehouse operations, with objections raised about his expertise in this area.

The architect acknowledged that while he designs warehouses, he does not operate them, leading to questions about the validity of his testimony regarding traffic projections. A key point of contention was the assumption made in his report about trailer parking spaces being necessary when loading docks are fully occupied. The architect admitted he lacked a source for this assumption, which raised further doubts about the reliability of his findings.

In a notable turn, the architect conceded that his original report contained inappropriate assumptions and clarified that the board was only considering the applicant's traffic estimates, not his own. He emphasized the flaws in the applicant's methodology, particularly the poor correlation between square footage and truck trips, which he argued undermined the traffic impact study's conclusions.

The meeting highlighted the complexities of evaluating traffic impacts for large warehouse operations and underscored the importance of accurate data and expert testimony in the decision-making process. The discussions are expected to influence the board's considerations as they move forward with the application.